DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed February 24, 2026 have been entered. Claims 3 and 5-12 remain pending, but stand rejected for the reasons detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As an overview:
Hu (CN Publication No. 109982544) teaches a liquid cooling plate having a cooling liquid flow channel, and a PCB having a plurality of chips.
Liu (CN Publication No. 109982544) teaches arranging a plurality of chips along a width of a cooling liquid flow channel.
Liu ‘168 (CN Publication No. 207531168) teaches chips arranged in a row on a PCB having at least two chip voltage layers that are powered in parallel.
Keceli (US Publication No. 2019/0324517) teaches chips in each voltage layer having substantially the same heat generation.
Applicant argues Keceli does not teach processors 106 being arranged in the same voltage layer or powered in parallel (Arguments, pages 9-10). However, Liu ‘168, not Keceli, is used to teach chips arranged in a row on a PCB having at least two chip voltage layers that are powered in parallel. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues Keceli does not teach a plurality of processors 106 being arranged along a width of a cooling liquid flow channel (Arguments, page 10). However, Liu, not Keceli, is used to teach arranging a plurality of chips along a width of the cooling liquid flow channel. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues Keceli does not teach a plurality of processors being arranged on a single PCB (Arguments, pages 10-11). However, Hu and Liu ‘168, not Keceli, are used to teach arranging a plurality of chips on a single PCB. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner also notes Keceli suggests processors 106 can be arranged on a single PCB (see Paragraph [0025], where blade 100 may include only one board 103, and a plurality of processors 106 may be arranged on the board; see also Paragraph [0037]). Figure 7 explicitly shows processors 106, where processors 106 in Keceli correspond to the processors of Hu as modified by Liu and Liu ‘168.
Applicant argues Keceli does not teach any two processors having substantially the same TDP. Examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0032] in Keceli states that Thermal Design Power (TDP) refers to a maximum amount of power or heat generated by the processor. Paragraphs [0069]-[0071] and Figure 7 explains uniform operating frequencies among processors are maintained along linear cooling paths by increasing the TDP for processors further downstream. While specific TDP values are not given, the figures and paragraphs explain that TDP of the processors at that same downstream location of the cooling path are given the same TDP values (see color/shade key in Figure 7).
Because the processors of Hu as modified by Liu and Liu ‘168 are also linearly arranged along a cooling path, Examiner submits, with this explanation from Keceli, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the power/heat generation within each voltage layer in Hu as modified by Liu and Liu ‘168 to be substantially the same as taught in Keceli, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have achieved uniform processor performance for processors arranged along different downstream lengths of a cooling channel (see Paragraphs [0035], [0069]-[0071] in Keceli).
Applicant argues Examiner has cut the claimed invention into too many small pieces to establish the prima facia case of obviousness (Arguments, pages 11-12). However, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
For these reasons, and the reasons detailed below, claims 3 and 5-12 stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN Publication No. 110941316) in view of Liu (CN Publication No. 109982544), Liu (CN Publication No. 207531168, hereinafter Liu ‘168, as cited in IDS), and Keceli (US Publication No. 2019/0324517).
Regarding claim 11, Hu teaches computing device, comprising: the a liquid cooling plate radiator (liquid cooling plate 100) comprising a radiator body (main body 10), a cooling liquid flow channel (second circulation path 11) located in the radiator body (10), and a flow directing channel (first circulation path 11 adjacent inlet 23) located in the radiator body (10); a PCB board (circuit board assembly 210) provided with chips (computing power chips 212) at one side surface thereof facing the liquid cooling plate radiator (100), the chips (212) are attached to the liquid cooling plate radiator (100), and the chips (212) are stacked on the cooling liquid flow channel (second 11), a width of the flow directing channel (first 11) in the direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the flow directing channel (first 11) is less than the width of the cooling liquid flow channel (second 11) in the direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the cooling liquid flow channel (second 11; see Figure 3), wherein on a same end surface (end of 10 adjacent inlet 23 and outlet 24) of the radiator body (10), there are two flow channel openings (23, 24) in communication (fluid communication, via first 11) with the cooling liquid flow channel (second 11), wherein end portions at one side of the cooling liquid flow channel (second 11) and the flow directing channel (first 11) are in communication with each other (see Figure 2), and an end portion at the other side of the flow directing channel (end of 11 adjacent 23) forms one of the two flow channel openings (23) on the same end surface (end of 10 adjacent 23, 24) of the radiator body (10).
Hu does not disclose a PCB board provided with at least two chip voltage layers, wherein each chip voltage layer comprises at least two chips that are powered in parallel and arranged in a row, no chips are stacked on the flow directing channel, the chips in each chip voltage layer are arranged in a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the cooling liquid flow channel, and the chips in each chip voltage layer are located on a same cross section of the same cooling liquid flow channel at which a temperature of a cooling liquid therein is consistent, such that all the chips in the same chip voltage layer have substantially the same temperature, wherein a width of the cooling liquid flow channel in the direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the cooling liquid flow channel is not less than a width of the at least two chips from each chip voltage layer that are powered in parallel and arranged in the direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the cooling liquid flow channel.
However, Liu teaches a computing device, comprising: the liquid cooling plate radiator (liquid-cooled heat sink) comprising a radiator body (main body 40), a cooling liquid flow channel (second flow channel 502) located in the radiator body (40), and a flow directing channel (first flow channel 501) located in the radiator body (40); at least two chip layers (layers of heat generating chips 60) facing the liquid cooling plate radiator (liquid-cooled heat sink), wherein each chip layer (layers of 60) comprises at least two chips (see Figure 2), the chips (60) are attached to the liquid cooling plate radiator (liquid-cooled heat sink), and the chips (60) are stacked on the cooling liquid flow channel (502) and no chips (see Figures 3 and 6) are stacked on the flow directing channel (501), the chips (60) in each chip voltage layer (layers of 60) are arranged in a direction (width direction of 502) perpendicular to an extension direction (length direction of 502) of the cooling liquid flow channel (502), and the chips (60) in each chip voltage layer (layers of 60) are located on a same cross section of the same cooling liquid flow channel (same 502), wherein a width of the cooling liquid flow channel (width of 502) in the direction (width direction) perpendicular to the extension direction (length direction) of the cooling liquid flow channel (502) is not less than a width of the at least two chips (two 60) from each chip voltage layer (layers of 60) arranged in the direction (width direction) perpendicular to the extension direction (length direction) of the cooling liquid flow channel (502).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have arranged the plurality of chips along a width of the liquid flow channels in Hu and to have not arranged chips along the flow directing channel in Hu, as taught in Liu, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of removing heat from chips via a liquid cooling plate, and considering it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). Modifying the cooling channels of Hu to accommodate the width of two chips as taught in Liu would have also increased the cooling capabilities of the liquid cooling plate by allowing more chips to be cooled by the liquid cooling plate (see Figures 1-6 in Liu). The structure of Hu as modified by Liu would simply result in changing the size of the cooling channels to either support the existing plurality of chips, or support an additional plurality of chips to provide for a more densely populated circuit board. Either way, it is well established that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)), and that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Here, increasing the amount of chips would simply increase the computing potential of the device.
Hu in view of Liu does not explicitly teach a PCB board provided with at least two chip voltage layers, wherein each chip voltage layer comprises at least two chips that are powered in parallel and arranged in a row.
However, Liu ‘168 further teaches a computing device comprising: a PCB board (Figure 7, PCB 700) provided with at least two chip voltage layers (voltage layers P1 and P2), wherein each chip voltage layer (P1, P2) comprises at least two chips (51, 52) that are powered in parallel and arranged in a row (see Figure 7).
Because both Hu and Liu ‘168 teach chips arranged on a PCB for the purposes of application specific data mining (see page 8 in Hu; see pages 1-2 in Liu ‘168), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have powered/connected the chips on the circuit board of Hu as modified by Liu in the matter taught in Liu ‘168 according to known methods to yield the predictable results of connecting/wiring a plurality of chips on a circuit board for the purposes of virtual currency mining (see page 8 in Hu; see pages 1-2 in Liu ‘168). Doing so would have also provided for a more reliable and cost-effective PCB configuration for virtual currency mining (see pages 2-3 in Liu ‘168).
Hu in view of Liu and Liu ‘168 does not explicitly teach wherein the chips in each of the voltage layers of the PCB board have substantially the same heat generation.
However, Keceli teaches wherein chips (106a-106h) in each of the voltage layers (Figure 7, first layer 106a, 106e; second layer 106b, 106f; third layer 106c, 106g; forth layer 106d, 106h) of the PCB board (103, corresponding to 210 in Hu) have substantially the same heat generation (see Paragraphs [0035], [0069]-[0071]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the power/heat generation within each voltage layer in Hu as modified by Liu and Liu ‘168 to be substantially the same as taught in Keceli, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have achieved uniform processor performance for processors arranged along different lengths of a cooling channel (see Paragraphs [0035], [0069]-[0071] in Keceli).
Regarding the functional limitation “at which a temperature of a cooling liquid therein is consistent, such that all the chips in the same chip voltage layer have substantially the same temperature,” because the structure of the device of Hu as modified by Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli is identical to the claimed structure, the device of Hu as modified by Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, because each chip voltage layer (see Figure 7 in Liu ‘168; see Figure 6 in Liu) are located on a same cross section of the same cooling liquid flow channel (11 in Hu, as modified by Liu to accommodate a plurality of chips along the width), powered in parallel within the same voltage layer (see Figure 7 in Liu ‘168), and configured to operate under uniform processor performance based on the cooling arrangement (see Figure 7 and Paragraphs [0035], [0069]-[0071] in Keceli), the liquid cooling channel is capable of cooling chips arranged along the width/within the same voltage layer by the same degree so as to allow each chip to have substantially the same temperature.
Regarding claim 3, Hu in view of Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli teaches the computing device according to claim 11, and further teaches (in Hu) wherein there is at least one cooling liquid flow channel (second 11), and the cooling liquid flow channel (second 11) extends straight (see Figure 2) in the radiator body (10).
Regarding claim 5, Hu in view of Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli teaches the computing device according to claim 3, and further teaches (in Hu) wherein a number of the cooling liquid flow channels (plurality of 11, excluding first 11) is an odd number greater than one (see Figure 2), and adjacent cooling liquid flow channels (adjacent 11) are in direct communication with each other through their respective end portions to form a serial flow channel (see Figure 2); an end portion of a first cooling liquid flow channel (last 11, adjacent 24) at one end of the serial flow channel (see Figure 2) extends to the same end surface of the radiator body (end of 10 adjacent 23, 24) to form one of the two flow channel openings (24), the end portion (end of 11 adjacent 24) extending to the same end surface of the radiator body (end of 10 adjacent 23, 24) not in direct communication with other cooling liquid flow channels (11, excluding first 11);
the flow directing channel (first 11) is adjacent to and parallel to a second cooling liquid flow channel (second 11) at the other end of the serial flow channel (see Figure 2); an end portion of the second cooling liquid flow channel (end of second 11 connected to first 11) at the other end is in direct communication with one end portion of the flow directing channel (end of first 11 connected to second 11), the end portion (end of second 11 connected to first 11) in direct communication with the one end portion of the flow directing channel (end of first 11 connected to second 11) not in direct communication with other cooling liquid flow channels (plurality of 11 between second 11 and last 11); the other end portion of the flow directing channel (end of 11 adjacent 23) extends to the same end surface of the radiator body (end of 10 adjacent 23, 24) to form the other of the two flow channel openings (23).
Regarding claim 6, Hu in view of Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli teaches the computing device according to claim 3, and further teaches (in Hu) wherein there is one cooling liquid flow channel (last 11); the flow directing channel (first 11) is parallel to the cooling liquid flow channel (last 11); end portions at the other side of the cooling liquid flow channel (end of last 11 adjacent 24) and the flow directing channel (end of first 11 adjacent 23) extend to the same end surface of the radiator body (end of 10 adjacent 23, 24) to form the two flow channel openings (openings in end of 10 aligned with 23, 24).
Regarding claim 8, Hu in view of Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli teaches the computing device according to claim 11, further comprising (in Hu): two pipe fitting connectors (end connectors defining 23, 24), the two pipe fitting connectors (end connectors of 23, 24) adapted respectively to the two flow channel openings (openings in end of 10 aligned with 23, 24) and mounted respectively at the two flow channel openings (openings in end of 10 aligned with 23, 24).
Regarding claim 12, Hu in view of Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli teaches the computing device according to claim 11, and further teaches wherein the at least two chip voltage layers (P1 and P2 in Liu ‘168, corresponding to chips 60 in Liu) are distributed along the extension direction of the cooling liquid flow channel (length direction of second 11 in Hu, corresponding to length direction of 502 in Liu).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN Publication No. 110941316), Liu (CN Publication No. 109982544), Liu ‘168 (CN Publication No. 207531168), Keceli (US Publication No. 2019/0324517), and in further view of Hall (US Publication No. 2019/0309959).
Regarding claim 7, Hu in view of Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli teaches the computing device according to claim 3, but does not teach wherein there are at least two cooling liquid flow channels; end portions at one side of the at least two cooling liquid flow channels are in direct communication with each other, end portions at the other side of the at least two cooling liquid flow channels are in direct communication with each other, and thus the at least two cooling liquid flow channels form a parallel flow channel; an end portion at the other side of a first cooling liquid flow channel of the at least two cooling liquid flow channels at one edge of the parallel flow channel extends to the same end surface of the radiator body to form one of the two flow channel openings; the flow directing channel is adjacent to and parallel to a second cooling liquid flow channel of the at least two cooling liquid flow channels at the other edge of the parallel flow channel; end portions at the one side of the flow directing channel and the second cooling liquid flow channel at the other edge are in direct communication with each other; an end portion at the other side of the flow directing channel extends to the same end surface of the radiator body to form the other of the two flow channel openings.
However, Hall teaches a liquid cooling plate (see Figures 6-8) comprising: a radiator body (hydronic panel 60), a cooling liquid flow channel (channel 64) located in the radiator body (60), and a flow directing channel (channel 62) located in the radiator body (60), wherein there is at least one cooling liquid flow channel (plurality of 64), wherein there are at least two cooling liquid flow channels (plurality of 64); end portions at one side of the at least two cooling liquid flow channels (ends of 64 adjacent block 67) are in direct communication with each other (through channels 69), end portions at the other side of the at least two cooling liquid flow channels (ends of 64 adjacent block 63) are in direct communication with each other (through channel 65), and thus the at least two cooling liquid flow channels (plurality of 64) form a parallel flow channel (see Figure 8); an end portion at the other side of a first cooling liquid flow channel (end 64 aligned with outlet 75) of the at least two cooling liquid flow channels (plurality of 64) at one edge of the parallel flow channel (see Figure 8) extends to the same end surface of the radiator body (end of 60 adjacent wall 72) to form one of the two flow channel openings (outlet 75); the flow directing channel (62) is adjacent to and parallel to a second cooling liquid flow channel (first 64 adjacent 62) of the at least two cooling liquid flow channels (plurality of 64) at the other edge of the parallel flow channel (see Figure 8); end portions at the one side of the flow directing channel (end of 62 adjacent 67) and the second cooling liquid flow channel (end of first 64 adjacent 67) at the other edge (adjacent 62) are in direct communication with each other (through 69); an end portion at the other side of the flow directing channel (end of 62 adjacent block 63) extends to the same end surface of the radiator body (adjacent block 63) to form the other of the two flow channel openings (inlet 73).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquid cooling channels of Hu as modified by Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli to be arranged in the manner taught in Hall, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of using channels to direct cooling fluid through a liquid cooling plate and considering it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) (see Figure 8 in Hall; see Figure 2 in Hu). Doing so would have also provided more cooling channels for which to arrange more rows/layers of chips, increasing the computing and cooling capacity of the device, and would have more evenly distributed the cooling liquid within the liquid cooling plate (see Paragraph [0052] and Figures 2 and 8 in Hall).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN Publication No. 110941316), Liu (CN Publication No. 109982544), Liu ‘168 (CN Publication No. 207531168), Keceli (US Publication No. 2019/0324517), and in further view of Hazard (US Publication No. 2934322).
Regarding claim 9, Hu in view of Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli teaches the liquid cooling plate radiator according to claim 8, and further teaches (in Hu) wherein the pipe fitting connector (end connectors of 23, 24) is a hollow pipe structure (see Figure 2), but does not teach wherein the pipe fitting connector comprises a first connection portion, a transition portion, and a second connection portion that are integrally formed; wherein, a shape of a cross section of an inner hole of the first connection portion matches a shape of the flow channel opening, the first connection portion docked with the flow channel opening; the second connection portion matches a connected pipe fitting; the transition portion is located between the first connection portion and the second connection portion; and at a first junction of the transition portion and the second connection portion, a cross section of an inner hole of the transition portion has the same shape as a cross section of an inner hole of the second connection portion; at a second junction of the transition portion and the first connection portion, the cross section of the inner hole of the transition portion has the same shape as the cross section of the inner hole of the first connection portion; in the transition portion, from the first junction to the second junction, the cross section of the inner hole of the transition portion smoothly transits from a shape of the cross section of the inner hole of the second connection portion to the shape of the cross section of the inner hole of the first connection portion.
However, Hazard teaches pipe fitting connectors (connectors 42, 50), wherein the pipe fitting connector (42, 50) is a hollow pipe structure (see Figure 6), and the pipe fitting connector (42, 50) comprises a first connection portion (inlet 34, outlet 32), a transition portion (between 34, 32 and conduits 40, 48, respectively), and a second connection portion (conduits 40, 48) that are integrally formed (see Figures 2, 6); wherein, a shape of a cross section of an inner hole of the first connection portion (Figures 2, 5-6, shape of 34, 32) matches a shape of the flow channel opening (openings of manifolds 28, 30 connected to 32, 34, respectively; see Figure 5), the first connection portion (34, 32) docked with the flow channel opening (openings of 28, 30); the second connection portion (40, 48) matches a connected pipe fitting (see Figure 2); the transition portion (between 34, 32 and 40, 48, respectively) is located between the first connection portion (34, 32) and the second connection portion (40, 48); and at a first junction (see annotated Figure 2 below) of the transition portion (between 34, 32 and 40, 48, respectively) and the second connection portion (40, 48), a cross section of an inner hole of the transition portion (see annotated Figure 2 and Figure 6) has the same shape as a cross section of an inner hole of the second connection portion (40, 48; Figure 6, first junction and 40, 48 having a circular shape); at a second junction (see annotated Figure 6 below) of the transition portion (between 34, 32 and 40, 48, respectively) and the first connection portion (34, 32), the cross section of the inner hole of the transition portion (see annotated Figure 2 and Figures 5-6) has the same shape as the cross section of the inner hole of the first connection portion (34, 32; Figure 5, inner hole being flat oval shaped); in the transition portion (between 34, 32 and 40, 48, respectively), from the first junction (see annotated Figure 2) to the second junction (see annotated Figure 2), the cross section of the inner hole of the transition portion (between 34, 32 and 40, 48, respectively) smoothly transits from a shape of the cross section of the inner hole of the second connection portion (Figures 2 and 6, circular shape) to the shape of the cross section of the inner hole of the first connection portion (Figures 2, 5-6, flat oval shape) (col. 2, ln. 38-54, “The shape of each connector includes a compound taper to accommodate the elongate nature of the inlet (or outlet) and the circular cross section of the associated conduit”; see also claim 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the connectors of Hu as modified by Liu, Liu ‘168, and Keceli for the connectors of Hazard. Doing so would have improved heat dissipation by providing for an even distribution of fluid entering and exiting the flow channels (see col. 2, ln. 38-54 in Hazard).
Regarding claim 10, Hu in view of Liu, Liu ‘168, Keceli, and Hazard teaches the liquid cooling plate radiator according to claim 9, and further teaches (in Hazard) wherein the shape of the cross section of the inner hole of the first connection portion (34, 32) is a flat oval (see Figures 2, 5-6) or a rectangle; and the shape of the cross section of the inner hole of the second connection portion (40, 48) is a circle (Figures 2, 6, circular shaped) (col. 2, ln. 38-54, “The shape of each connector includes a compound taper to accommodate the elongate nature of the inlet (or outlet) and the circular cross section of the associated conduit”; see also claim 9).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GAGE CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc
Prosecution Insights